The amendment "adds nothing to the rights of one person as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the states, upon the funda mental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society." This principle con trols both clauses, being applied to that se curing due process of law and repeated with respect to equal protection of the laws ; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 554, 23 L. Ed. 588. The United States has not conferred the right of suffrage on any one; id.; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162, 178, 22 L. Ed. 627. The duty of protecting all citizens in the enjoyment of the fundamental rights mentioned in the amendment "was originally assumed by the states ; and it still remains there. It does hot add to the privileges and immunities of citizens, but only protects those, which they already, have; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 627.
The power of congress to protect rights secured by the XIVth Amendment may be grouped in three classes: (1) Denial by state legislation, or hostile acts of state officers, of rights secured by the amendment ; (2) con gressional interference, regardless of fault on the part of the state, by plenary legislation creating direct rights within the state, to protect ti right which,is only an immunity to be exempt from invidious discrimination at the:bands of the state, and which can never bring, any right' into being, or authorize any action of 'congress, unless the, state first makes such wrongful discrimination ; (3) legislation by congress which confused rights dependent upon the constitution or laws with rights secured only by state laws, entwining them :without distinction, in' the grasp of a statute, whose provisions were incapable of Separation, thus 'vitiating the- enactment be cause broader than th•,power conferred; U. SI y. Powell,•151 Fed.:649.
The "amendment did not radically change the whole theory of the relations of the state and federal governments to eaoh, other, and of both governments to the people.' The same person may be at the, same time. a citizen of the United States and a' citizen of state. Protection to life, liberty and property rests primarily with' the states and the amendment' furnishes' an additional guaranty, against any encroac.hment by the states upon those fun damental rights which helong to. citizenship, and which the state, governments were cre-. ated to 'secure ;" In re Kemtuler, 136 U. S. 436, 10 Sup. Ct. 930, 34 L. Ed. 519, citing U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588, and Slaughter-House Cases, 16, Wall. (U. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394.
The only obligation :resting on the United States is to see that the states do pot deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, but no, more; U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 555, 23 L. Eli. 588 ; Arrowsmith, v. liar moning, 118 U. S. 194, 6 Sup..et. '1923, 30 L. Ed. 243 ; In re Converse, 137 U. S. 624,41
Sup. Ct. 191, 34 L. Ed. 796; Morley v. Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 162, 13 Sup. Ct. 54, 36 L. Ed. 925 ; McNulty v. California, 149 U. S. 645, 13 Sup. pt., 37 L. Ed. 882;, Marclaant v.
It. Co., 153 U. S. 380, 14 Sup, Ct. 894, 38 L. Ed. 751. The continuous and systematic ad ministration of a state law or municipal or dinance which so operates as to violate the amendment will be corrected. Neal v. Dela ware, 103 U. S. 370, L. Ed. 567; Arrow smith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S. 194, 6 Sup. Ct. 1023, 30 L. Ed. 243 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 ; Wil liams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213, 18 Sup. Ct. 583, 42 L. Ed. 1012. It is applicable not only to the state but to all of its instrumentalities and agencies and to the executive and legis lative bodies of its cities and counties; In re Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 25 L. Ed. 667; Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 5 Sawy. 552, Fed. Cas. No. 6,546; In re Tiburcio Parrott, 6 Sawy. 349, 1 Fed. 481. It limits the exercise of all the powers of the state which can touch the individual or his property; County of San Mateo v. R. Co., 13 Fed. 722, 8 Sawy. 238; and applies in the case of a law of which the apparent purpose is to make extortion possible and which interferes with the power of congress to regulate intercourse with foreign nations; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 23 L. Ed. 550.
It was not the intention of the XIVth Amendment to subvert the general and spe cial taxing systems of the states; it affords the same protection against arbitrary state legislation as is afforded by the Vth Amend ment against legislation by congress; Detroit v. Parker, 181 U. S. 399, 21 Sup. Ct. 624, 45 L. Ed. 917; Tonawanda v. Tyo•, 181 U. S. 389, 21 Sup. Ct. 609, 45 L. Ed. 908, where it was said that it was not intended to hold otherwise in Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 19 Sup. Ct. 187, 43 L. Ed. 443 ; see Dux PROCESS or LAW. Its prohibitions were not intended to prevent the state from adjusting its system of taxation in all proper and rea sonable ways, or from imposing different taxes on different trades, etc.; Armour Pack ing Co. v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 26 Sup. Ct. 232, 50 L. Ed. 451, where it was held that a license tax on a meat packing house doing both interstate and domestic• business ap plied to the latter only and was not open to review. "It is important for this court to avoid extracting, from the very general lan guage of the XIVth Amendment, a system of delusive exactness in order to destroy methods of taxation which were well known when that amendment was adopted and which it is safe to say that no one then sup posed would be disturbed ;" Louisville & N R. Co. v. Pay. Co., 197 U. S. 430, 25 Sup. Ct. 466, 49 L. Ed. 819. Nor was it designed compel the states to adopt an ironclad rule of equality to prevent classification for taxation; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. B. 245, 26 Sup. Ct. 459, 50 L. Ed. 744.